Features » April 6, 2011

Was Rahm Right?

In 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel infamously said that progressives are “fucking retarded.” Lately I’ve begun to think he was correct–though not for the same reasons as Emanuel, who thought that progressives held unrealistic expectations for his boss, President Barack Obama. Progressives are retarded because they had those expectations for Obama to begin with, and poured so many of their hopes and aspirations–not to mention dollars–into electing him.

Sure, Obama was way better than his opponent John McCain, though it was always questionable–and still is–whether Obama was going to be better than Hillary Clinton. But the course of progressives’ “relationship” with Obama–from infatuation to letdown to spurned–shows a bewildering level of “drink the Kool-Aid” naiveté on the part of some otherwise sharp people. How could this have happened? Are there lessons to be learned for the future?

During the presidential campaign, while Obama deployed the lofty rhetoric and vision in his speeches that became his stock in trade, some of us were pointing out that there was nothing in this former state senator and then-U.S. Senator’s unremarkable record that indicated he was a strong or reliable progressive. Sometimes he had progressive tendencies, other times not. A friend of mine from Chicago who had Obama as a law professor presciently predicted that an Obama administration would be characterized by “ruthless pragmatism,” not progressive idealism.

But many progressives believed, quite fervently, that in the course of finding that ruthless pragmatism, Obama would cleverly figure out how to lean strongly progressive. There was always a nod and a wink coming from the Obama movement that seemed to say, “Don’t worry, he’s more progressive than he’s revealing. That’s what you have to do to get elected president in the United States.” When some of us continued to express doubts, these Panglosses got upset. Very upset. “It’s time to get on board,” they said. And I felt like Bongo, the one-eared rabbit in Matt Groening’s Life in Hell cartoon, shut up and gagged in a detention room.

How can so many brilliant people have fallen for so much hokum? That question is not an easy one to answer. Perhaps at some point Arianna Huffington, Robert Kuttner, Michael Moore and other left-ish pundits will engage in a bit of self-criticism and enlighten us as to how they were hoodwinked so easily. Because here’s my fear: Progressives don’t seem to be learning from their mistakes. Right before Obama’s inauguration, Huffington wrote, “Now, more than ever, we must mine the most underutilized resource available to us: ourselves… It is not just the Bush Years that should be over on January 20, but also the expectation that a knight in shining armor will ride into town and save us while we cheer from the sidelines. Even if the knight is brilliant, charismatic and inspiring. It’s up to us–We the People.”

Yet that’s exactly what so many did–they invested their hopes and aspirations, their passion, activism and money, in a shining knight for whom there was scant evidence of his progressivism or legislative accomplishments. Was it their desperation to see the GOP run out of town and the Bush legacy overturned? And the Clintons too? Was it their desire to see an African American elected president? Kuttner, author of Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency and co-founder of The American Prospect, wrote about a friend who said, “I so wanted to be supportive of a great progressive president this time instead of being back in opposition.”

So does the despondency of the struggle explain progressives’ massive miscalculation? How do they account for the stunning failure of their leadership? It is time for some major self-criticism within the progressive movement, especially among its leadership. At the very least, we should note how the “netroots” failure to keep its knight galloping in the right direction shows the stark limitations of a movement that does not have a strong enough ground component.

New rules

Yet a progressive future is not only contingent on a genuine grassroots movement. Structural political reforms are needed for that movement to transmit change through government at all levels. We would never have had this latest meltdown of our economic system if our political system had not melted down first. The two-party system is sclerotic. As Obama’s presidency shows, more than ever, there is no room for progressives at the table of highest political power. The reason for this is that the rules of the game that elect our representatives actually hurt progressives.

A truly democratic electoral (and thus political) system would include:

 Public financing of campaigns.

 Free media time for campaigns.

 Universal/automatic voter registration.

 Direct election of the president (abolition of the electoral college).

Together these measures would serve to both expand the electorate and broaden representation in our legislatures.

What progressives should learn from the last three years is that the current electoral rules don’t allow them to earn and own their place at the table; instead progressives have to wait to be invited there by their Democratic gatekeepers. And those gatekeepers are plainly happy to accept your votes and money–but that’s all.

The European Greens are the best example of what progressives could accomplish with a real democracy. With proportional representation, public financing of campaigns, free media time for campaigns and universal voter registration, the Greens are able to consistently win their own representation in the legislatures even though they often don’t break 10 percent of the popular vote. Nevertheless, they get their fair share of seats, and are present in the legislature and in the media and in the important debates of their time.

Through this very presence, the Greens have managed to push the political spectrum in their direction to the point where even the conservative parties in Europe today are “greener” than the U.S. Democratic Party. Despite some alarming right-wing swings in the U.K. and France, the European political spectrum is where American progressives would love to be. That’s because Europeans have real and functioning democracies, and not the half-baked version that Americans suffer with today.

At the very least, we can thank Obama for drawing the lines in the sand so clearly and starkly. At this point, any progressive leader who does not pursue political reform relentlessly is a faux leader, and she or he should get off the stage and hand over the microphone to someone else. It’s time for a change of leadership in the progressive movement to those who understand these harsh realities. Because the only thing worse than the steep upward climb ahead is when certain leaders take us up the wrong dead-end trail. Unfortunately, that’s what just happened.

If progressives can’t figure this out and get started on the tough hard slog of political reform, I can only conclude that, truly, Rahm Emanuel was right.

Steven Hill is a political writer and former political reform director at the New America Foundation whose most recent books include Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope for an Insecure Age and "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy." For more information and links to his articles and op-eds, visit www.Steven-Hill.com. His band Zebra Zeitgeist has released a song, “President Obummer.”

P.E., as unexplained does not mean inexplicable, pragmatic does not mean satisfied.
T.S.Posted by todd saalman on 2011-07-20 15:10:27

todd,
I too voted pragmatically for Obama. However that does not mean I should feel proud of my vote. As Steven notes above, we currently have no other choice, as do the Germans, and we are doing next to nothing to bring about the changes necessary to reverse the current trend of marching further and further to the right. In my mind, there is little difference between both parties except that of degree or the speed at which the corporatist agenda gets accomplished. Obama is just as corporatist and neocon as Bush or McCain and is pushing the same goals, just more secretively and with more of an eye to his re-election reputation. (He is a Democrat after all, not a Republican, and has to be more "centrist" appearing to maintain his Democratic voting appeal.)
Regarding my vote I feel both sad and angry, not satisfied, in my choice as you seem to indicate you are of yours.Posted by P E. Scott on 2011-07-20 14:40:17

Sorry that I'm just getting around to this now, but my two-cent contribution to this discussion is that, sure, maybe I agree with all that Hill says about Obama, but what other choice did we really have but to vote for him in the general election and hope for the best? Can anyone except late night talk show hosts imagine Sarah Palin sitting in the vice-president's chair? I feel pragmatically justified.Posted by todd saalman on 2011-07-20 12:02:34

Hi, welcome to visit my website, here you can find the products you like with little money!
http://celebutantehotdesigner.com/list/banana-moon-bikini.htmlPosted by penny li on 2011-06-14 00:05:53

Lou wrote:
"But here in California, for example, there is a very practical alliance between the labor movement and elected democrats."
Lou, I live in California, and while it's true there is an alliance between labor and elected Democrats, it has not exactly found any solutions to the problems facing Californians or Americans. In fact, I would say that the Democrats pretty much take labor for granted in California, just as in the rest of the nation. And of course the California Democrats also take labor's money, their voter turnout efforts and their votes, but I don't see that labor is getting very much in return. Unionized jobs in the public sector are being slashed, 25% of Californians have no health insurance (according to a recent report), and recent polls show that the public thinks public sector unions should take a hit on health care and pensions in order to help out the state. I really don't see any kind of Democrats-labor alliance making any headway in California at all.
In short Lou, I think you are living in dreamland.
If we had a multiparty system in California, in which labor could have electoral options besides just the Democrats, including a true progressive party, or a Working Families Party that had chances of actually electing someone, labor would be in a far stronger position to bargain with political parties and get real agreement for progressive and pro-labor policy instead of being taken for granted.
In Germany, a recent poll found that the Green Party is now the second largest party in Germany with 28% support, only behind the ruling party Christian Democrats. If the election were held today, the Green party would end up heading a new government with the social Democrats as their junior coalition partner. The Green party has successfully pushed environmental issues – anti-nuclear, global warming, and other progressive issues – to the point where those issues are now mainstream German politics. Even the conservative Christian Democrats have PROGRESSIVE positions on many issues, compared to the Democrats in the United States.
Why is that Lou? It's because they have proportional representation which has led to multiparty democracy; it's because they have public financing of campaigns, free media time for political parties during campaigns, universal/automatic voter registration, and other political reforms that American progressives twiddle their thumbs over.
So you go on believing that there is an alliance between labor and Democrats that is taking us in the direction we need to go. But as far as I can tell, you guys are spinning your wheels. And we will be having the same conversation in 10 years and 20 years from now unless you start putting more of your efforts towards real, substantive political reform.
Steven Hill
www.Steven-Hill.com
www.EuropesPromise.orgPosted by Steven Hill on 2011-04-25 16:21:48

Hi Dennis,
This is an issue that was raised in a recent In These Times editorial meeting, and it was agreed that the term should not have been used outside of a direct quotation. We're sorry for this slip, and we appreciate you taking the time to challenge us and provide constructive criticism. This kind of dialogue with our readers is essential as we work to, as you say, change and improve the ways in which we and other progressives understand and fight against all forms of oppression.
Best,
Joe Macaré
Communications Director
In These TimesPosted by Joe Macaré on 2011-04-25 09:26:47

I am surprised that though a generally good article, no one has commented on Steven Hill's repeat use of the term "retarded".
This is a discriminatory derogatory term which disability activists have been trying to raise awareness against using in this way for a long time.
If this does not seem clear to you, just imagine that your child was developmentally disabled... imagine the stigma that child will face throughout his/her life ... and then re-read the article's subtitle. How does that feel?
Just because Rahm Emanuel was crude and unconscious enough to use the word as he did does not justify Steven copying his unacceptable behavior.
Please look up some disability activists and read what they have to say. Ableism (the analogy to racism, sexism...) is one of the least understood forms of oppression, including on the US left.
Let's work together to help change this.Posted by Dennis Anello on 2011-04-22 05:26:57

Thanks for sharing. Its really an unknown information.. Greetings.hotels antalyaPosted by asil on 2011-04-16 17:29:57

Fred,
Then we agree on the idea that the point is a lack of empathy, not that he is black. And of course he is affecting all Americans. The poor exist in all colors of skin which makes any talk at all about his heritage moot. The white, black, yellow and brown, poor people, who believed his lofty rhetoric about their "condition" do feel great disappointment, as their dream of "hope and change" is revealed for what it is.
Elitism is based in a belief that the country should be ruled by a small group of the "highly educated." Elitism is an attitude that is formed way before attending a prestigious college. Said college just allows a person to polish his skills and become part of the elite group. Learning the "how to do it" skills that put the already formed elitist mentality to work.
An interesting question is: What does highly educated mean? Does it simply mean attending a prestigious college? Or do grades enter the equation? Clinton, Bush and Obama went to prestigious colleges but with vastly different grades. Never the less, Bush is as much an elitist as Obama or Clinton, though he did not appear to learn very much while attending. The definition of elitism does not include the emotions, like empathy and compassion, and being a word with negative connotation you would not really expect an elitist to have them. Unless you choose to believe smooth campaign rhetoric, of course.Posted by P E. Scott on 2011-04-14 17:51:18

P.E.,
The condemnation is not that he is African American, but that he lacks the empathy voters might have expected from an African American.
In general, I ascribe some of his elitism to his elite education.
We should get beyond "criticism should not be personal", when we are dealing with someone'whose personal convictions impact the lives of hundreds of millions of us,Posted by Fred Donaldson on 2011-04-14 16:43:21

Fred,
In my view, your conclusion is correct, Obama is a corporatist, and in foreign policy, basically a neocon. That said there is no reason to bring up his background in education or the color of his skin. These are elitist and racist approaches. Simply look at what Obama has done over the last two+ years. Ignore his beautiful "campaign" rhetoric and look at his actions. The story they tell, from the push for government secrecy (the pursuit of WikiLeaks through Pfc Bradley Manning), to the escalation of our militaristic authoritarian approach to the rest of the world. (Escalation in Afghanistan and now Libya.) The list is quite long. Using elitist and racial condemnation is really pointless as well as being simply wrong.Posted by P E. Scott on 2011-04-14 14:08:20

Why does Obama get pass after pass?
We expected a Black man would understand the plight of the average American.
Obama is not a Black man. He is an African American, who went to private school, Harvard and played with the other elites in Illinois. He is on their team, not ours.Posted by Fred Donaldson on 2011-04-14 13:02:01

Steven and PE:
I appreciate what each of you has to say. And it could very well be true that complicity with democrats will lead us nowhere.
But here in California, for example, there is a very practical alliance between the labor movement and elected democrats.
What I’d like to see in the 2012 election cycle is a real discussion of the critical importance of unions and the necessity for radical political reform.
I know my approach seems too moderate for both of you, but there are a lot of mainstream democratic voters - potential allies - who are listening.Posted by Lou Siegel on 2011-04-11 17:57:41

Responding to Lou and Steven
There seems to me to be a blurring of the label "Liberal" (or currently Progressive). As Steven points out the Democratic party, which was Liberal from the 30s through the 60s, is not now the party it once was. The DLC back in the mid eighties formally changed the thrust of the party with the philosophy of becoming more business friendly. The DLC assumed control of the party and while still calling themselves Liberal called the shots for the next 20 years. Although the DLC is formerly dead now, we are left with the "new" definition of Liberal being business friendly. Republican light, instead of Democratic left. Was it Paul Wellstone who coined the phrase "The Democratic wing of the Democratic party?" That observation alone points to the drift Steven is talking about. In short, Lou, to think of yourself as a Progressive is just inaccurate. 30 years ago, with your current mindset, you would have been at home in the Republican party. You, in my view are not a Progressive, you are a Democrat. Don't confuse the two. True Progressives today are considered radical leftists or the fringe, where 50 years ago they were the Democratic Party. It is the Democratic party that has changed, not the Progressive ideology which remains the same.Posted by P E. Scott on 2011-04-11 13:29:49

Frankly Lou -- as long as we are being frank with each other -- I don't think you get it. Like so many other progressives. Which is why political reform is proceeding all too slowly, and progressives are perennially shut out of the halls of power even as you watch the political center shift ever rightward. You all followed Obama, mostly blindly and uncritically, just as so many progressives followed Bill Clinton. And where has that left not only the progressive movement but our country?
We are at a fork in the road, make no mistake about it: either progressives like yourself start working -- seriously working -- on political reform, or watch the Democrats drift further and further to the right. Without a viable political choice to the left of the Democrats, there is no ballast holding them from drifting further rightward. Isn't that completely obvious at this point?
Steven Hill
www.Steven-Hill.comPosted by Steven Hill on 2011-04-11 11:50:57

Progressives and Liberals have one problem: They assume that "Liberal Politicians" are as honest as they are. Obviously this has never been the case.Posted by magistre on 2011-04-07 18:07:26

Lou,
Reality often appears strident to strong believers who intend to maintain their belief. Forgiveness is not the issue, nor is condemnation or judgement. The point is to see the difference between our fervent desires and the facts on the ground. Where they don't match, the best course is to go with the elected officials actions, not their "gift for gab." That may be embarrassing or painful, based on our earlier decision, but it is necessary, and trying to relieve the pain by seeking forgiveness while pursuing the same beliefs only makes it worse.
MerlinPosted by P E. Scott on 2011-04-07 14:13:13

Steven:
Of course we’re bitterly disappointed and I agree with your political reform agenda but I’m not sure how you would pull from the stage progressive leaders who don’t line up with your program.
Our movement is very diffuse and includes activists with broadly diverse political values. The labor movement is the best example of that.
Frankly, I think you tone is a little too strident.
Work on the reforms you believe in but show a little more tolerance toward those who see things differently.
And be particularly forgiving to those who - despite our doubts and frustration – will be lining up squarely behind Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election.Posted by Lou Siegel on 2011-04-07 06:38:00

See two articles by me: "A Voters' Revolt Against Two-Party Rule" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Voters-Revolt-Against-T-by-Scott-McLarty-101029-859.html) and "Memo to Progressives: Green or the Graveyard" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Memo-to-Progressives-Gree-by-Scott-McLarty-101216-690.html)
While Dems continue to compromise & capitulate, the GOP reaches for ever greater extremes, pushing the US in an increasingly dangerous direction.
This will change when voters begin to understand that it's not "Democrats vs. Republicans" but "Dems + Repubs vs. the rest of us", that both parties have an interest in limiting debate to the narrow D vs. R spectrum and barring any other political competition, that the two parties are symbiotic factions of an imperial Washington establishment that makes service to corporate lobbies its chief business.Posted by Scott McLarty on 2011-04-07 01:17:04

Unfortunately the change is not going to happen politically. The political infrastructure is configured to lock out reform.
Egypt and Wisconsin have shown what is required.Posted by aacme on 2011-04-06 20:28:26

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.comPosted by mvymvy on 2011-04-06 10:00:41